The mayor and the councillor for Williamsville appear to be on the same page when it comes to building a school on the Memorial Centre grounds: neither one wants it.

“Personally, I do not think the Memorial Centre is a good site for a school,” Mayor Mark Gerretsen told the Whig-Standard this week.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea. And I think it’s a non-issue at this site.”

But that’s as far as the meeting of minds goes between Gerretsen and Coun. Jim Neill on this highly contentious issue.

Behind the scenes, Neill has had to retain a lawyer in Belleville to counter a charge by the mayor that his public comments about the actions of a senior staff member were in contravention of the Municipal Act.

And the mayor plans to veto a motion Neill is pushing to council from the Arts, Recreation and Community Policies Committee that is meant to head off any plans by the Limestone District School Board to build a new secondary school on the site.

Why the clash, when it seems the two politicians agree on the future of the Memorial Centre?

The controversy goes back to March, when councillors passed a motion asking city staff to investigate the Limestone board’s school review process, which is mandated by the province.

The concern expressed at the time was that if any of Kingston’s high schools were to close, that would make their immediate neighbourhoods less desirable to live in.

As the school board consultation process moved along, one of the options that appeared was to close two high schools and build a new one. The Memorial Centre site was named in the document.

In a Whig-Standard story earlier this month, Neill expressed concern that Community Services Commissioner Lanie Hurdle had been in talks with school officials – as she was ordered to do – and that the Memorial Centre location was discussed.

He felt the intent of the motion was to avoid the closing of any schools, not to entertain the possibility.

In the same story, however, councillors Jeff Scott and Sandy Berg said that the Memorial Centre property would be an excellent location for a high school.

Not only that, they said the arena itself could be torn down to make way for a new facility.

On July 19 at ARC, Neill presented a motion asking that staff “not discuss this option unless otherwise directed” by council.

Neill called it a “reaffirmation” of a city council motion that was sent to the Limestone board in 2007 shooting down a similar proposal for an elementary school at the Memorial Centre.

However, the motion did not pass.

The ARC committee had been restricted to one hour that night. By the time several councillors and citizens spoke, the committee had no time to vote on the motion, which would have passed.

Interestingly, Jeff Scott was in the middle of his presentation in support of building a school at the Memorial Centre when the clock ran down.

Neill called it a “filibuster.”

If that was the case, it worked. Next month’s ARC committee meeting is scheduled for Aug. 16 but council sits on Aug. 14, meaning the motion couldn’t come before councillors until September.

All of this may be moot, anyhow, because Gerretsen says he will rule the motion out of order.

“I’m ruling it’s out of order because we’ve already given staff direction,” he said.

For the record, the mayor also disagrees with Neill about what latitude Lanie Hurdle had for discussions with the school board.

“(The motion) did not put restrictions on it,” he said.

Gerretsen also dismissed the concept of a reaffirming motion and vote.

“There is no such a thing,” he said. “It’s not about what happened in 2007. That’s like saying we should have a reaffirmation about the casino debate because we passed it in 1995. That’s just silly.”

Neill called the mayor’s move to quash the motion “a political effort to stop further discussion of the consideration of the Memorial Centre. I think he got burned with the original (Whig) article. I think he’s wishing this would go away.”

Gerretsen said he would entertain a motion to reconsider the previous motion. That, of course, could completely open up the discussion and in a way Neill might not like.

More serious is the rift over Neill’s comments about Lanie Hurdle.

Neill expressed a “mea culpa” at the ARC committee meeting, indicating that he had not been critical of the commissioner’s abilities or motives – only that he was trying to establish the parameters of her discussions with the school board.

Neill told the Whig he sought legal advice at his own expense because of Gerretsen’s comments to him.

“I was concerned about what I saw as a threat as a councillor when he said I was contravening the Municipal Act,” he said. “He repeated it enough I thought I should seek legal counsel.”

Neill wouldn’t go into detail about what the lawyer told him other than it was “fair comment” and that the comments “are not disrespectful.”

“My lawyer doesn’t think I had any issues for the article. My mea culpa is that I named Lanie,” he said.

It’s not clear after speaking with Gerretsen whether the matter will go away.

“He should seek legal advice on that. Jim Neill, in his comments, said he was giving direction to Lanie Hurdle,” said Gerretsen.

“Yes, he was in contravention of the Municipal Act. The bigger concern was the way he treated Lanie Hurdle. He accused Lanie of going beyong the scope of her work.”

The mayor said he asked Neill “at least three times” to apologize to the commisssioner.

Asked if Neill’s explanation to the ARC committee was enough, Gerretsen said the audience that evening would have been limited to just a few councillors and members of the public, though Hurdle was also there and reported on her discussions concerning the Memorial Centre.

“It’s up to Lanie whether she wants to take action,” said Gerretsen.

“You don’t just make those comments in public... The employer needs to respect that relationship.”